Last Night's New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN and John King Were The Big Losers

There was something terribly bothersome about about last night's debate between Republican candidates for President, and I couldn't figure it out until I watched it a second time this morning.

First of all there were either too many candidates or not enough time.  It seemed as if the candidates did not have enough time to answer particular questions, and because all the candidates did not answer each question its is hard in some ways to compare.

Secondly moderator  John King was a disaster.  With almost every answer one could hear King in the background, it was hard to tell if the guy was lifting something or trying to answer questions of his own, because the sound of grunts or "ums" coming from King were annoying as hell.

The three most important topics to voters are how to create jobs, how to fix the economy and energy, yet there were few questions on those topics,but there were questions about the tea party which are important only to King and the rest of the liberal media.  The United States is facing economic disaster....why would John King trivialize the debate with those inane "this or that" questions? Is it really important to know whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish or flat pizza?

Despite the problems with the format some of the candidates did find a way to stand out yesterday.

Winners:

• Romney's job in last night's debate was "not to lose it." In other words not to make any gaffes.  He seemed knowledgeable about each of the topics and he even seemed to believe his answer about Romneycare.  Romney was a winner by not losing. I wish he didn't seem like such a dammed politician all the time.

•  Michele Bachamann was a big winner last night.  Her job was to prove that she wasn't the nut job she is portrayed as by the liberal media. Bachmann more than succeeded.  She seemed knowledgeable and enthusiastic, perhaps a bit too enthusiastic the times she tried to get the crowd to cheer along with her. Her answers were knowledgeable, not only her answers to the economic questions which one would expect, but on foreign policy also.  I wouldn't surprise to see her jump up in the polls after her performance.

Losers:

• The biggest loser last night was Tim Pawlenty.  Already with a reputation of being a "98 pound weakling" as a candidate, perhaps the debate's most uncomfortable moment was the "Obamnycare" question.  John King served Mitt Romney's head to Pawlenty on  a silver platter, but the former Minnesota Gov. chickened out. I believe that last night will mark the end of Tim Pawlenty as a serious candidate.

• Most of Newt Gingrich's answers were very good (although his continuing claim that his comments on the Ryan plan were taken out of context doesn't do him any favors). The Gingrich campaign is falling apart. All of his senior people have quit.  Gingrich had to win the debate and win big in order for his campaign to remain viable...he didn't.  Goodbye Newt.

Disappointing:

• I went into last night wanting to really like Rick Santourm. He did an adequate job but for a guy participating in his first candidates debate he needed to do much better.  He looked very uncomfortable when he was asked for economic plan specifics and offered a handful of nothing. Many of his answers seemed like political hooey.

• Anybody that ran a pizza company has a leg up in my book but Herman Cain did nothing to break away from the pack last night. Too many of his answers revolved around "hiring the best people" and/or asking the Generals.  Sorry Herman but you have been running long enough, you should have surrounded yourself with some of the right people and asked a general or two by now...we need to know some specifics. Cain was wonderful when he stopped King and showed how he misquoted the"hiring Muslims" line, but then he took three paragraphs to get to what he really meant Shariah Law. 

 Also there:

•  Racist/Anti-Semite Ron Paul was also there. I am sure he appealed to the Ronulins. 

Overall the big winner was Michele Bachmann and the biggest loser was John King and CNN

 

Does Romney Support ANY Conservative Positions? Reveals His Support of Global Warming Hoax

If Mitt Romney gets the GOP nomination for President the debates will be awfully boring:

Moderator: What do you think of Universal Health care?
Obama: I supported it for Obamacare
Romney: I supported it for Romneycare

Moderator: What is your position on global Warming?
Obama: The Scientific Consensus proves that it is one of mankind's biggest threats
Romney: The Scientific Consensus proves that it is one of mankind's biggest threats

 That's right, not happy with the suspicion he has earned from GOP voters because of Romneycare, the former Massachusetts governor turned perpetual presidential candidate has doubled down on the suspicion by announcing his support of the man-made global warming hoax.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

According to the latest polls, Romney leads the GOP New Hampshire primary field by a wide margin.

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney sounded just like President Obama, he called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal (he didn't mention domestic drilling).

"I love solar and wind (power) but they don't drive cars. And we're not all going to drive Chevy Volts," he said referring to electric cars.

The United States can not go it alone in attempting to trim emissions levels and give a free pass to countries such as China and Brazil, Romney said. "It's not called American warming, it's called global warming," he said.

Actually its called a hoax developed to facilitate world-wide redistribution of income

Software developer Michael Hillinger, 60, of Hanover, New Hampshire, posed the climate change question.

Romney's answer provided plenty of wiggle-room, Hillinger said, but "he is taking a more forthright stand than any of the other candidates."

.....Asked to lay out a specific plan for the economy, Romney outlined seven points but referred to his 2010 book "No Apology" as containing his policy ideas in details.

"It's a good book. I'll give you a discount," he quipped.

The Guy is rich as all hell and he doesn't give details of his economic plan so he can pimp  his book? Well at least he is a capitalist.

Romney skirted a question about whether doctors who perform abortions, or women who have abortions, should face criminal sanctions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. law that protects abortion rights, were overturned.

"I am pro-life," he said, adding that decisions on abortion law should be returned to state jurisdiction.

Abortion is one of several issues on which Romney's critics accuse him of flip-flopping over the years. In the past, including during his race in 2002 to be Massachusetts governor, he has said he supports the substance of Roe v. Wade.

 Put it all together and you have candidate Newt Romney. He supports some progressive policies and flip-flopped away from others.  Why is he running for the GOP nomination? Wouldn't a campaign as a moderate Democrat be more appropriate?